Roy Moore's Senate race: Proof God is still relevant

To better appreciate the attacks on Roy Moore and his campaign for the U.S. Senate, one needs to fully understand the true import of the Supreme Court’s 2015 landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.

To legalize same-sex marriage in all states of the union, the highest court in our land had found it necessary to base its decision on an erroneous presumption that, even but a few years ago, would have shocked the nation:

In the America of today, God is … irrelevant.

To circumvent any need to address the morals of God, the justices couched their entire discussion in a secular-humanist safe-zone of their own creation.

In their entire 28-page opinion by which they intentionally sought to completely reset America’s moral compass, God is never mentioned – not even once!

Moreover, as to those who today still strongly believe in God, the majority only afforded one short throwaway paragraph near the end on page 27, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. … The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.”

Translation: Whatever any imagined God may think about the issue we are deciding, that God, along with the people who still believe in such a God, can simply pound sand.

Why? Simply because they said so?

Perhaps in part that is true. But it is also true that they felt safe by their knowledge they were not operating in a vacuum.

The justices’ undeniable rejection of God was not so much their declaration of a new idea, as it was their reflection of a pre-existing secular ideology that they were aware had already been gaining traction in America for a number of years, a humanist movement that would wish us all to be compelled to accept any ideas, behaviors and lifestyles some secular progressive minority groups may choose to entertain simply because they had been anointed to be “politically correct.”

Then along came Obergefell, by which the highest court in the nation bestowed upon this secular movement a crown of “entitlement.” That, in turn, transformed progressive preferences into “rights.” And that, in turn, has allowed the secular movement in this country to transform what was before a wave of moral change into the cultural tsunami we are seeing today that is destroying our country’s moral structure.

For those who may doubt this to be true, witness the recent serious consideration our culture is presently giving to ideas and propositions that before Obergefell would not have been considered even worthy of debate. Things like teaching our children that:

Their gender is now a matter of each child’s personal choice;

The number of gender choices available to them is far more than two;

The number of public bathrooms available to them based on their choice of gender is now at least two;

If their gender choice happens to require surgery, in some instances they may be entitled to government (i.e. taxpayers) assistance to cover their medical costs;

Their intimacy with anyone of any gender is nothing other than an acceptable alternative lifestyle; and

Even their intimacy with non-humans – AI robots – is acceptable as well, should they choose that option going forward.

Then along comes Roy Moore.

One might imagine that, if God were willing to create for Hillary Clinton a poster boy for the kind of man she would find deplorable, it would probably be Moore.

Hardly a man in doubt about which bathroom to use, he is also unashamedly opposed to the LGBT agenda. He also objects to the killing of unborn children. And, not surprisingly, he still believes people should be willing to accept the gender God created them to be.

In short, he is a man with the courage to stand firm in his opposition to just about anything and everything the progressive movement’s secular ideology in this country has been successfully imposing upon our culture for years.

The fact that is shocking, however, is that so many people are in shock and asking themselves, how can a man like this still exist in America today, much less aspire to a seat in the U.S. Senate?

The answer is that he believes our society’s moral trajectory should be determined, not by the fickle whims of our personal preferences, but by an independent universal standard handed down to us by the very God the Supreme Court and its progressive followers insist we should ignore. And, it is his opponents’ conflict with this very belief that has formed the battle lines in the war being waged against Moore.

It is a cultural drama that has certainly now almost risen to a level of biblical proportions. But it is also a drama that includes circumstances that mere coincidence and irony fail to fully explain – a reality that becomes clearer when one observes the battle from the perspective of the challenge Moore’s beliefs present to Obergefell.

For example, is it merely ironic that Roy Moore was removed as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, in part, by the efforts of Alabama’s then-Attorney General Luther Strange, whom Moore subsequently defeated in the primary about a year later? A circumstance made even more bizarre by that fact that the reason Strange was able to make the man who defeated him available to even run against him was because of Moore’s refusal as chief justice of Alabama to enforce a law he considered unconstitutional and immoral – the law created by Obergefell.

Then consider, is it merely by chance that, after 40 years of a pristine public life, his opponents have sought his defeat by defaming him with accusations of behavior for which many of them could themselves be found guilty of defending in accord with their own ideology that Obergefell supported and to which many others would even proclaim themselves because of Obergefell to be “entitled” to engage in?

Then lastly, add to this mix of “ironic coincidences” all the members of Mr. Moore’s own party who, because of his “beliefs,” have joined in with the progressives to oppose his candidacy.

When viewed in light of all this, another battle fought 3,000 years ago in the valley of Elah comes to mind. There, another mere mortal demonstrated great courage in standing against another giant who, like the opponents of Mr. Moore, mocked his God.

From this perspective, perhaps we should consider whether our nation is being afforded the opportunity this coming Tuesday, Dec. 12, to witness a miracle like that experienced by David. If so, and Roy Moore heads to the U.S. Senate, one may want to consider at least one additional possibility: Could it be that Moore’s God, whom the Supreme Court deemed to be irrelevant, just might be, in reality, exactly the opposite?

Clifford Nichols – whose website is cnicholslaw.com – is an attorney licensed to practice law in both California and New Mexico.